What Science do I Need for Philosophy of Mind?
I have become increasingly interested in philosophy of mind, consciousness, free will, and so on. But am hesitant to approach the topic from the ungrounded, scientific layman's point of view. What science do I need to learn to study this subject seriously?
Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, Physics? And how could I go about learning it by myself?
Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, Physics? And how could I go about learning it by myself?
Comments (39)
It depends how serious you are. I recommend Gazziniga’s books on studies in Cognitive Neuroscience - they’re not for the faint hearted though. Principles of Neuroscience is the standard textbook for the field I believe? Both are HUGE tomes and you’ll never get to read them all the way through, but they are very good references (you can find pdf them online; although probably not the latest editions).
The so-called philosophy of mind has been so utterly taken over by advances in neuroscience, that either bolster or dismiss ungrounded philosophical speculation, that a large number of people who’ve committed their careers to such areas have been left flailing in the wake. Without a reasonable appreciation of neuroscience and neurophysiology you’ll have a hard time coming up with anything new or reasonable given that many different positions can be easily dismissed through fact finding.
I’ve even posted here about the innate optimism that humans have and people simply dismiss this. It is actually a neurological fact not blind speculation - if it eats into people’s preconceived ideas then they do tend to dismiss it not understanding the science behind such discoveries (such biases are part of neuroscience and psychological studies - when it some to theory of mind we’re generally playing in the field of psychology and the grounding of what little we can dismiss based on neurological data acquired.
Anyone concerned about “mind” is a fool to ignore the information cognitive neuroscience provides in this area.
Bennett is a neuroscientist, Hacker an academic philosopher. It’s a well-regarded book. Read the Notre Dame review if nothing else.
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/philosophical-foundations-of-neuroscience/
Question: how would Socrates have benefitted from neuroscience (other than if he had had a brain injury or tumor and would have then died for the want of it?)
If you read Bennett and Hacker, you will become familiar with the logical errors which many eminent scientists (e.g., Gazzaniga) have made. Then read as much cognitive science as you can.
Bennett, Maxwell Richard; Hacker, Peter Michael Stephan. 2003. Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
But there is a big difference between answering the questions "how do we think?" and "why do we behave the way we do" than answering the question "why do we have a conscious experience of things?". The latter is referred to "the hard problem of consciousness" and it's really not easy to get anywhere in that subject.
Oh wow! Big names.
I'll have to rush right out and buy those Gazzaniga books then, not.
Speaking of ignorance: what part of "Bennett is an internationally renowned neuroscientist" don't you understand?
Alicia Juarrero - Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System
Scott Kelso - Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior
Andy Clark - Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind
Andy Clark - Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again
Jesse Prinz - Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape the Human Mind
Donald Merlin - Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition
Antonio Damasio - Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain
George Lakoff - Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind
Evan Thompson - Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy
Evan Thompson - Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind
Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier - The Enigma of Reason
Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson - Relevance: Communication and Cognition
L. S. Vygotsky - Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes
As a note of principle: you can't study the mind if you don't study the body; definitely study the basics (and more) of neuroscience, but if you're not studying evolution, anthropology, and culture alongside that, you'll be doing yourself a disservice.
Psychology is also important in relation to the neuroscience and I’d say anthropology is not the most solid source of information (to put it mildly); the exception being Renfrew and looking into Cognitive Archaeology as well as neurogenesis.
Like the sound of that.
http://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp-content/uploads/2011_mercier_why-do-humans-reason.pdf
//oh, and thanks - the abstract save me from the trouble.
Exactly. In other words, philosophy is a science and conclusions from one domain of investigation should be consistent with the conclusions in another. All knowledge must be integrated.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It's only a hard problem for dualists - not so hard for monists. If the fabric of the mind is the same as the rest of reality (for example, information/meaning is the fabric of reality), then what is the hard problem?
As for science/philosophy books that I would recommend:
Steven Pinkers "How The Mind Works" and Douglas Hofstadter's "I Am A Strange Loop"
"it makes no sense to ascribe such psychological attributes to anything less than the animal as a whole. It is the animal that perceives, not parts of its brain, and it is human beings who think and reason, not their brains."
Does it make sense to ascribe blood-pumping attributes to anything less than the animal as a whole? Respiratory attributes? Bile-producing attributes? Perspiration attributes?
Why aren't there similar objections to talking about the specific functions of other organs/systems? Why not an appeal to attribute all functions to animals as a whole, as if specific organs/systems have no particular functions? (Is it because they realize that it would be clearly stupid in those regards?)
Where is mind and its components? As always, I'm only interested that you cite credible scientific research in answering this question. You have not provided it in the past, and I doubt that you will be able to provide it now.
Because of this, I don't think mind exists. But I do think that psychological predicates can be attributed to animals. Given the first assertion, and apart from elaboration, is the latter assertion logical (i.e., does it make sense)?
If a psychological predicate can be applied to animals, then we're referring to properties of either some part or the whole of the animal's body, no?
Thanks for proving my point regarding lack of credible scientific evidence.
No opinion regarding my second question (here)?
Why aren't you answering my question. Let's do one thing at a time.
OK, I'll give you a clue: Bennett and Hacker make the same two assertions, but if you want the elaboration, you will have to read their book.
I assume PMS Hacker is a competent logician and philosopher of mind, but admit that you may regard him as "stupid" per above.
I think it does. The strength of reductionism is to reduce (hence the name) complex systems to their component parts and processes to understand how they work together. That is why the scientific study of anatomy and physiology were fundamental to the establishment of modern medicine. But to then assume that the nature of the mind is amenable to the same treatment is a misapplication of that method by trying to extend it to a subject that is of a different order.
Certainly cognitive science can examine the sense in which different aspects of neuroanatomy interact to perform particular functions, but again, these are what are called in philosophy of mind the relatively easy problems. The hard problems revolve around the nature of subjective experience (a.k.a. ‘Being’) which are again problems of a different order.
If it does, then how would we explain how you can produce bile just as well when you've had a toe removed, or both legs amputated, or both legs and both arms amputated, etc.?
How about trying to answer the question rather than figuring that being ridiculously patronizing will get you anywhere?
The questions your asking are in the domain of physiology, whereas the mereological fallacy is a philosophical issue. If you can’t see the distinction, then there’s nothing to discuss.
So there isn't a whole versus parts when we're talking about physiology? Isn't the mereological fallacy a la Bennett & Hacker specifically about physiology--talking about brains versus a whole person?
Baars: A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness is the best scientific book on consciousness I've read albeit it's slightly old now.
It's been a while since I read it but from what I recall the book was overtly behaviorist. It identifies psychological properties by their use.
Why stop there? Is there a reason - a good reason - why we should subdivide the universe according to localised concentrations of matter (or according to any other standard)? What reason do we have not to consider the universe as a whole, not a collection of parts?
Exactly. So we'd no longer be able to peg any particular properties, any particular functions, to any particular part. Chemistry textbooks, for example, would have to read something like this:
"The empirical formula of the universe can be determined by its universal composition. Assuming 100g of the universe and calculating the number of moles of the universe, universe and universe . . . "